Almost ten years ago, the Bloomberg administration backed a plan to fund Brooklyn Bridge Park’s creation and future maintenance that involved – no surprise here – development of two residential towers.

And while it is true that all construction completed in the park over the past nine years was undertaken with the understanding that the projects would eventually be funded by these developments, local residents are saying they have better ideas.

It is not uncommon to hear the phrase “park land is sacred” in this city, which is populated by millions of apartment dwellers without yards of our own.

And so it is understandable that now, seeing BBP unfold into one of New York City’s most iconic parks, the residents of Brooklyn Heights and other surrounding communities aren’t excited about the prospect of losing some of the green space they’ve gained to another pair of apartment buildings.

Community members are apparently bursting with ideas on how to fund the park’s $12 million per year budget, and there has never been a public meeting held for them to share their insights. So the big question here is, why is that?

There is an obvious need to fund the many projects that have taken place at BBP in recent years, as well as those planned for the future. But does that mean that a plan arrived at ten years ago is really the best option?

The least that could be done is for the board to look into other, more contemporary, crowd-sourced solutions. What’s the worst that could happen?